CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 novembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s941533F0 { width:187.74pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s1E48CC8A { width:225.76pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 67896/01 by Mauro and Antonella BAGLIONI against Italy The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   November   2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson ,   Ms   I. Ziemele, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 March 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Mauro Baglioni and Mrs Antonella Baglioni, are two Italian nationals who were respectively born in 1966 and 1963 and live in Florence. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Strammiello, a lawyer practising in Florence. The respondent Government were represented by their successive Agents, respectively Mr U. Leanza and Mr I.M. Braguglia, and by their successive co-Agents, respectively Mr V. Esposito and Mr F. Crisafulli. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The eviction proceedings G.B., the applicants’ father, was the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to R.B. In a registered letter of 26 June 1987, the applicants’ father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on 31   December 1987, on expiry of the term, and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. In a writ served on the tenant on 27 June 1988, the applicants’ father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate. By a decision of 20 September 1988, which was made enforceable on 10   October 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 September 1989. On 4 March 1993, the applicants’ father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 12 March 1993, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 1 June 1993. Between 1 June 1993 and 11 October 1994, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants’ father was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. On 16 October 1994, the applicants’ father died. The applicants inherited the flat and became party to the proceedings. Between 7 February 1995 and 23 May 2000, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession of the flat. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. In the meanwhile, on 29 May 1995, the second applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises for herself. On 21 September 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat. 2.     The Pinto Act Claim On 23 May 2002, the applicants applied to the Genoa Court of Appeal, claiming compensation under the Pinto Act for the length of the eviction proceedings. They sought redress for damages and left the determination of the compensation to be assessed by the Genoa Court of Appeal in an equitable manner. In a judgment of 7 June 2002, filed with the registry on 17 July 2002, the Genoa Court of Appeal held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It granted 7,230.40 euros (EUR) to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage and a total sum of EUR 1 100 for pecuniary damage as costs and expenses incurred in the eviction proceedings. The Ministry of Justice appealed to the Court of Cassation, which, by a judgment of 5 August 2004, upheld the Genoa Court of Appeal’s decision. By a letter of 5 September 2005, the lawyer acting on behalf of the applicants informed the Court that they had received payment of the sums allowed. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the eviction proceedings. The Court has also examined this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. THE LAW By a letter of 5 September 2005, the lawyer acting on behalf of the applicants informed the Registry that the applicants had received the payment of the sums allowed by the Court of Appeal of Genoa and that they had not interest in maintaining the application before the Court. In the light of the above, the Court considers, in accordance with Article   37 § 1 c) of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37   §   1 in   fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Registrar   President